IRIS Europe II Implementation of River Information Services in Europe

Transcription

1 The European Union's TEN-T programme supporting IRIS Europe II Implementation of River Information Services in Europe Part E Activity 4 Publication date (final version): This project is co-funded by the European Commission / DG- MOVE / TEN-T A project implemented by the IRIS Europe II Consortium

2 Implementation of River Information Services in Europe Title of Report Part E Activity 4 Version v1p0 (final) Date of version January 31, 2012 Status Public Consolidating authors via donau Mario Kaufmann Brigitte Hintergräber This project is co-funded by the European Commission / Directorate General for Mobility and Transport within the Trans European Networks Transport programme

3 Document History: Version Comments Date Authorised by v0p1 Initial version of the document via donau v0p2 Draft version with all content via donau v0p3 Draft final version Project Management Team v1p0 Final version IRIS II Project Consortium Responsible for the content: Organisation(s) via donau, AT RSOE, HU KIOS, SK SPS, SK RWS, NL Author(s) Mario Kaufmann Christoph Plasil Mario Sattler Lukas Seemann Stefan Simon Robert Rafael Csaba Farago Michal Chochula Lucia Karpatyova Stefan Chalupka Jos van Splunder Cas Willems Peter Oudenes Marianne de Jong Frank Turkenburg Lex Kampert Rene Visser IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 3 of 64

4 Table of Content Abbreviations Activity 4 Harmonization of Quality of Information Services for RIS Background information Objectives Work approach Results Conclusions & recommendations Introduction SuAc 4.1 Definition of QoIS in the RIS Context Introduction Sphere of influence for QoIS Quality of Information Services in the RIS context Elaborating selected Quality Aspects and RIS services Demonstrating selected Quality Aspects SuAc 4.2 Definition of QoIS for Notices to Skippers Introduction Quality of Information Services for NtS Results Experiences and recommendations SuAc 4.3 Definition of QoIS for Electronic Reporting Introduction Quality of Information Services for ERI Results Conclusions SuAc 4.4 Definition of QoIS for RIS Index Introduction Quality of Information Services for RIS Index Results Conclusions SuAc 4.5 Definition of QoIS for Vessel Tracking and Tracing Introduction Quality of Information Services for VTT Summary Conclusions List of Tables List of Figures IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 4 of 64

5 Abbreviations Ac Activity ADN European Agreement concerning international transport of dangerous goods over inland waterways European Agreement concerning international transport of dangerous goods ADNR over the Rhine river (the CCNR adoption of the ANR, a similar agreement for road transports) AIS Automatic Identification System BICS Binnenvaart Informatie en Communicatie Systeem CAS Calamity Abatement Services CBS Statistics Office in the Netherlands CKR Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine CCTV Closed Circuit Television ECDIS Electronic chart and display information system EDIFACT Electronic Data Interchange for administration commerce and transport EF Efficiency aspect EN Environmental aspect ENC Electronic Navigational Charts ENI European unique hull identification number EPC Electronic Port Clearance ERDMS European Reference Data Management System ERI Electronic Reporting ERINOT ERI notification message (EU inland shipping data exchange standard) ETA Estimate time of arrival FIS Fairway Information Service FTM Fairway and Traffic related message GPRS General Packet Radio Service (= a mobile data communications service) GPS Global Positioning System GSM Global System for Mobile communication HS Harmonized commodity description and coding System IECDIS Inland Electronic Chart Display and Information Service IMDG International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code IMO International Maritime Organization IMO FAL International Maritime Organization defined Facilitation messages ISO International Standards Organization ISPS International Ship and Port facility Security Code IVS90 Traffic management system in the Netherlands IRIS Europe (II) Implementation of River Information Services in Europe LBM Lock and Bridge management services MADT Maximum Allowable Downtime Maximum Tolerated Time to Repair - the maximum tolerated time required to MaxTTR repair a failed system/service, including also the time from when the failure occurs until it is detected, so the entire time the system/service is not available MIB Traffic management system in Germany MTBF Mean Time Between Failures - the (predicted) average elapsed time between inherent failures of a system during operation NtS Notices to Skippers QoIS Quality of Information Services PIANC World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure PMT Project management team of IRIS Europe II RIS River Information Services RPR Rijnvaartpolitiereglement 1995 RTA Requested time of arrival IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 5 of 64

6 RWS SA SHMU SLA SPS STI SuAc SVP TLS VHF VTMC VTS VTT WP WRM Rijkswaterstaat Safety Aspect Slovak Hydro Meteorological Institute Service Level Agreement State Navigation Administration Strategic Traffic Image Sub Activity Slovak Waterway Management Enterprise Transport Logistics Services Very High Frequency Vessel traffic management centre Vessel Traffic Services Vessel Tracking and Tracing Work Package Water level related message IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 6 of 64

7 1 Activity 4 Harmonization of Quality of Information Services for RIS Background information In the context of RIS, monitoring and management of Quality of Information Services is essential for the acceptance of RIS Services. RIS users will only rely on RIS services and introduce RIS services in their daily operational processes, when sufficient and guaranteed, service levels are established. Activity 4 dealt with the definition, harmonization, implementation of Quality of Information Services and related measures with such a European context in mind, focusing on the selected RIS key technologies Notices to Skippers, Electronic Reporting, Vessel tracking & Tracing as well as the RIS Index. Objectives The main objective of this Activity with relation to harmonization and introduction of Quality of Information Services for RIS was to elaborate a European definition of Quality of Information Services for the RIS key technologies, namely Vessel Tracking and Tracing, Notices to Skippers and Electronic Ship Reporting as well as for the RIS Index. Work approach SuAc 4.1, which acted as a kind of coordination activity for the SuAcs , was organised as common activity by the involved SuAc partners whereas the majority of the preparatory work was done by the Dutch partners who also moderated the held meetings. The SuAcs were coordinated by the nominated SuAc leaders who consolidated, presented and updated the related QoIS documents based on the input of the SuAc partners whereas each partner was nominated to define specific QoIS requirements. Furthermore, the SuAc leaders presented the preliminary results to the RIS Expert Groups in order to gather their feedback and further input. Results A work programme was elaborated and the QoIS in the RIS context was defined in detail. Specific services and information elements as well as the most relevant quality parameters and user groups were identified and documented. Within SuAcs , the minimum quality requirements towards the related services and information elements were investigated, discussed and documented. As it was experienced that the effort for this took much more time than expected due to different viewpoints, it was agreed to focus on the elaboration of the minimum requirements of selected subsets of information elements and quality parameters. In the end lots of experiences and know-how in relation to the definition of QoIS for RIS was gained by all participating partners and results are available which can form a solid basis for further work in that field. Conclusions & Recommendations It is difficult to define a unique and harmonized level of quality for RIS services (key technologies) throughout Europe due to differences in business processes, traffic- and navigational conditions as well as different view points. It is recommended to ensure, that the requirements of real RIS users will be examined in more detail from the practical point of view. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 7 of 64

8 1.1 Background information Requirements In general, the term quality of service is a measure for the performance of systems services. Certain goals are defined and service levels determine the percentage to which these goals should be met. Examples for service levels include the percentage of calls answered in a call centre within a defined timeframe, or the maximum number of customers on hold during defined timeframes. In the context of RIS, monitoring and management of Quality of Information Services is essential for the acceptance of RIS Services. RIS users will only rely on RIS services and introduce RIS services in their daily operational processes, when sufficient and guaranteed, service levels are established. The introduction of European service level parameters is considered as a first step and will eventually allow for all RIS services to operate on an equal and consistent quality level throughout the EU fairway system. Activity 4 was intended to deal with the definition, harmonization, implementation of Quality of Information Services and related measures with such a European context in mind, focusing on the selected RIS key technologies Notices to Skippers, Electronic Reporting, Vessel tracking & Tracing as well as the RIS Index Preliminary work There was no specific preliminary work done related to the definition of quality parameters for specific RIS services and technologies. Nevertheless, it was identified during various implementations, tests and evaluations, that there is a clear lack of well defined quality parameters which would serve as a guideline for the required quality during implementation of RIS Challenges Main challenges were to focus the work within Activity 4 due to the fact that not all services, information elements, viewpoints and quality parameters can be considered. As it was the first trial to defined quality criteria for RIS, an agreement had to be reached on a subset of services / information elements and on specifically selected quality parameters to be investigated. Another challenge that was identified during the execution of Activity 4 was to consolidate the partly very different viewpoints on required quality towards recommended minimum quality requirements Other relevant background information There was always a special focus within Activity 4 to integrate practical experiences and to cooperate with the RIS expert groups, especially when discussing the first available results and the next steps related to the definition of quality requirements for RIS. At the beginning of the project IRIS Europe II, it was stated that also within the project RISING special works are being done in the field of examination the quality of services, namely in the work package dedicated to the so called RIS Service Performance Profile. From that perspective it was decided that mutual cooperation between both projects is necessary. The only difference between quality related activities in both projects is that whereas IE II focuses mainly on the description of quality requirements on RIS services from the authority point of view, in RISING focus has been placed mainly on the description of requirements from the (logistics) user s point of view on the newly developed RIS TLS services. Representatives of both projects met during the several projects meetings dedicated to QoIS, where results from RISING project has been presented to IE II (and vice versa). IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 8 of 64

9 In project RISING it was decided to use the portfolio of quality aspects as defined within the project IRIS Europe II for the description of qualitative requirements of RIS TLS services developed as the pilot within the WP4 of project RISING. On the other hand, RISING project has delivered requirements of logistics users on the service FIS.6 Temporary obstructions in the fairway (input has been considered within the document QoIS for NtS) and on CFM.2 - Information on the cargo to be transported (input has been considered within the document QoIS for ERI). 1.2 Objectives Specific objectives The main objective of this Activity with relation to harmonization and introduction of Quality of Information Services for RIS was to elaborate a European definition of Quality of Information Services for the RIS key technologies, namely Vessel Tracking and Tracing, Notices to Skippers and Electronic Ship Reporting as well as for the RIS Index. The RIS key technology Inland ECDIS was not considered separately in detail due to the fact that the Inland ECDIS Expert Group had already started a similar initiative. The definitions had to be elaborated in close cooperation with the RIS Expert Groups. A selected and agreed set of measures for provision of Quality of Information Services had to be further specified, so they can be implemented as pilot installations in the respective countries. National particularities and requirements had to be considered for each service. In Sub-Activity 4.1 the specific requirements for the pilot implementations in Sub-Activities 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 had to be elaborated. Based on the specific requirements a task description had to be included into an updated version of the SAP, and activity leaders had to be assigned Planned results The following results were initially planned to be achieved within Activity 4 and its sub-activities: Definition of Quality of Information Services in the RIS Context Definition of Quality of Information Services for NtS, ERI, RIS Index, VTT Evaluation of national RIS Implementations according to the Quality of Information Services Pilot implementation of Quality of Information Services for NtS, ERI, RIS Index, VTT Definition and demonstration of best practices for Service Levels Recommendations to achieve a European harmonized level of the Quality of Information Services for RIS Provision of the result to the involved Expert Groups and, if applicable, provision of adaptation and amendment requests on the existing standards and/or draft standards to the involved Expert Groups Amended tasks and results The following amendments took place related to the planned results: Evaluation of national RIS implementations according to the Quality of Information Services o It was agreed by the Project Management Team together with the responsible persons for Activity 4 to declare this task respectively expected result as optional based on the results achieved within the SuAc and depending on the existence and status of related national infrastructure. Pilot implementation of Quality of Information Services for NtS, ERI, RIS Index, VTT IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 9 of 64

10 o Due to the fact that the definition of meaningful and practicable quality indicators and the minim requirements on those took much more time and effort than expected, it was identified that the clear focus has to be put on the theoretical work before starting with the enhancement of national pilot infrastructure based on not agreed quality requirement. Therefore this task respectively expected result was agreed to be skipped and to be investigated further based on the results out of Activity 4. Definition and demonstration of best practices for Service Levels o It was agreed by the Project Management Team together with the responsible persons for Activity 4 to declare this task respectively expected result as optional based on existing infrastructure and experiences which allow the definition of a best practice example. 1.3 Work approach Activity partners Country Partner organisation Role within Activity Responsibility NL RWS Activity leader (SuAc 4.1) Activity coordination; SuAc 4.3 leader; SuAc 4.2, 4.4, 4.5 partner AT via donau Activity leader (SuAc 4.1) Activity coordination; SuAc 4.5 leader; SuAc 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 partner BG BPI SuAc partner SuAc 4.2, 4.3 partner HU RSOE Activity partner (SuAc 4.1) SuAc 4.4 leader; SuAc 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 partner SK KIOS Activity partner (SuAc 4.1) SuAc 4.2 leader; SuAc 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 partner BE CETUS Observer Activity 4 observer CZ MDCR and RVCCR Observer SuAc 4.4 observer DE BMVBS and WSV Observer Activity 4 observer HR CRUP Observer Activity 4 observer Work approach Table 1-1: Partners Activity 4 SuAc 4.1, which acts as a kind of coordination activity for the remaining SuAcs , was organised as common activity by the involved SuAc partners whereas the majority of the preparatory work was done by the Dutch partners who also moderated the held meetings. The SuAcs were coordinated by the nominated SuAc leaders: SuAc 4.2 QoIS for NtS: Slovakian partner KIOS SuAc 4.3 QoIS for ERI: Dutch partner RWS SuAc 4.4 QoIS for RIS Index: Hungarian partner RSOE SuAc 4.5 QoIS for VTT: Austrian partner via donau The SuAc leaders consolidated, presented and updated the related QoIS documents based on the input of the SuAc partners whereas each partner was nominated to define specific QoIS requirements. Furthermore, the SuAc leaders presented the preliminary results to the RIS Expert Groups in order to gain their feedback and further input. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 10 of 64

11 1.3.3 Meetings Due to efficiency reasons it was agreed to organise common Activity 4 meetings instead of separate SuAc meetings: SuAc 4.1 Kick-Off meeting, , Rotterdam o Objectives o Parameters to be considered (quality aspects, services, data elements, user groups) o Identification of necessity to focus only on most important subsets of all parameters SuAc 4.1 meeting, , Vienna o Work to be done (planning and resources) o Relation with other initiatives o Selection of specific RIS sub-services and focus on specific user groups SuAc 4.1 meeting, , Vienna o Activity work programme o Nomination of national experts per SuAc o QoIS in the RIS context document SuAc 4.1 meeting, , Budapest o QoIS in the RIS context document o QoIS tables (data elements / quality aspects / user groups) o Elaboration guide o Nomination of the SuAc leaders SuAc 4.1 meeting, , Rotterdam o First results (QoIS for RIS Index; QoIS for ERI) o Work programme o QoIS in the RIS context document o SuAc working documents and elaboration guide o Time schedule next steps Activity 4 meeting, , Varna o Presentation, feedback and discussion of the first results Activity 4 meeting, , Vienna o Presentation, feedback and discussion of QoIS documents o Discussion about evaluation and demonstration of pest practices within Activity 4 o Definition of quality parameter availability o Progress and next steps Activity 4 meeting, , Nijmegen o Feedback of workshops held in NL and DE o Status quo and next steps o Preparation for presentation of preliminary results to RIS expert groups Activity 4 meeting with RIS expert groups, , Rotterdam o Introduction of Activity 4 and objectives o Presentation and discussion about SuAc 4.2 (QoIS for NtS) results o Presentation and discussion about SuAc 4.3 (QoIS for ERI) results o Presentation and discussion about SuAc 4.4 (QoIS for RIS Index) results o Presentation and discussion about SuAc 4.5 (QoIS for VTT) results Activity 4 meeting, , Bucharest o Finalisation of results o Conclusions and recommendations IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 11 of 64

12 1.4 Results The work within this activity was started by SuAc 4.1 by the investigation and definition of the work that shall be done within the remaining SuAcs A work programme was elaborated and the QoIS in the RIS context was defined in detail. Furthermore, within SuAc 4.1 the specific services and information elements as well as the most relevant quality parameters and user groups were identified and documented. Furthermore the QoIS documents that had to be elaborated within SuAcs were drafted as templates and handed over to the SuAc leaders for further elaboration together with elaboration guidelines in order to ensure a unique level of detail and structure of the results. Within SuAcs , the minimum quality requirements towards the related services and information elements were investigated, discussed and documented. As it was experienced that the effort for this took much more time than expected due to different viewpoints and understandings it was agreed to focus on the elaboration of the minimum requirements and handle other expected results as optional (as stated in chapter 3.3). In the end lots of experiences and know-how in relation to the definition of QoIS for RIS was gained by all participating partners and results are available which can form a solid basis for further work in that field Documentation Title Content Organisation Activity 4 work programme IRISII Act4 work programme_v0p1c.doc Work programme per SuAc RWS and via donau QoIS in the RIS context 2010_06_01_M6_QoIS_in_the_RIS_Context_v0p5_ draft_final.doc Selected services and quality parameters RWS Elaboration guide 2010_06_01_QoIS_elaboration_guide_v0p6_draft_fi nal.doc Guide how to elaborate the QoIS documents for NtS, ERI, RIS Index and VTT via donau QoIS tables per SuAc QoIS_for_NtS_v0p2.xls QoIS_for_ERI_v0p2.xls QoIS_for_RIS_Index_v0p5.xls QoIS_for_VTT_v0p2.xls Overview on selected services / information elements, quality parameters and user groups via donau QoIS documents for review by RIS expert groups 1_2011_05_20_QoIS_NtS_v1p0_draft_EG_review.p df Definition of minimum quality requirements SuAc leaders and partners IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 12 of 64

13 2_2011_05_20_QoIS_ERI_v0p8b_EG_review.pdf 3_2011_05_20_QoIS_RIS- Index_v0p11_EG_review.pdf 4_2010_05_20_QoIS_VTT_v0p91_EG_review.pdf Benefits Table 1-2: Documentation Activity 4 The main potential future benefits out of well defined and agreed minimum quality requirements on certain RIS key technologies and services would be: Provision of a minimum quality level of operational systems and services beyond national borders. This potentially contributes to the increased acceptance and usage of RIS within the inland navigation transport sector and therefore indirectly contributes to the general main aims of RIS, the increase of safety, efficiency and environmental friendliness of inland navigation. An agreed definition of minimum quality requirements is a solid basis for the justification of infrastructure investments in order to provide a certain quality level. Detailed discussions about the quality topic for RIS during the numerous Activity 4 meetings have led to several recommendations, how to provide specific RIS service from the point of view of certain quality parameters. These recommendations can in certain extent contribute to increase the quality of RIS provision without big effort and costs. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 13 of 64

14 1.5 Conclusions & recommendations Together with the experts in the RIS Expert Groups it was concluded that IRIS Europe II provided a most suitable approach for dealing with the complex topic of Quality of River Information Services. The identified services and quality parameters were agreed, and the methodology was much appreciated by the RIS Experts. However, the elaboration of the values for the selected quality parameters requires more time and special attention. Awareness and a common understanding were created that the intention of the work related to Quality of RIS was not to duplicate existing standards but to build, where applicable, bridges between existing standards / technologies and operational requirements. In addition, operational requirements currently not addressed in standards or regulations shall be identified. The RIS Expert Groups were identified as the most suitable platform for bringing together these requirements. The IRIS Europe II consortium does in no way conclude the content of the Sub-Activity reports within Activity 4 as finalised, as it reflects a first attempt to gather ideas and experiences how to identify and define relevant quality requirements. The further work and output related to Quality of RIS strongly depends on the experience and expertise of the experts in the field of River Information Services, whereas for the Sub-Activity reports the specific expertise of the Vessel Tracking and Tracing Expert Group, the Inland ECDIS Expert Group, the Notices to Skippers Expert Group, the Electronic Reporting International Expert Group, the Inland Navigation Branch Organisations and inland waterway transport sector will be unconditionally required Experiences and conclusions Quality of RIS Services is in general a complex topic: it involves many different quality aspects of many different RIS services, provided for different users each involved with different business processes and hence with different quality requirements. The diversity in demands on quality extends even further: it may depend on local, navigational, hydrological or meteorological conditions and it may be different up to the level of individual information elements provided by a service. The approach to handle this complexity during the project involved: o o o Selection of a subset of quality parameters: only the most important / relevant ones were taken into consideration. Limitation of the number of services to be evaluated: only the most important services, i.e. those related to current developments within the participating countries, were evaluated Provision of clear definitions of the chosen quality parameters. Several different understandings of specific quality parameters were identified in the course of selection of a subset of quality parameters that made it even more difficult to agree on a certain definition and to reach a common understanding of the quality parameter in relation to RIS. Furthermore it was experienced that one and the same quality parameter might have different meanings for different information elements. It was experienced that the requirements towards a minimum quality level differs enormously from user group to user group and from business case to business case. Therefore it can be concluded that the strictest minimum requirement for a specific information element shall define the related minimum quality level. It was also experienced that different persons of the same user group (e.g. fleet managers) have very different requirements concerning the quality level (e.g. accuracy of vessel position information), which makes it complicated to identify a solid minimum quality level. Availability aspects have been investigated from a systems owner perspective. In other words a maintenance setting where availability is measured from historic events (e.g. over the IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 14 of 64

15 last week/month/year this service has been available for such and such). Other views on availability are possible but were not specifically investigated. Some parameters need to be 100% accurate because processes use them as (primary) keys to access databases. A good example is the ships number (ENI or IMO number); in many services this number is used as e key to store and access data related to a particular ship. A wrong number can make services fail or deliver wrong data. It is only hardly possible to define a unique and harmonized level of quality for RIS services (key technologies) throughout Europe. In certain cases, it is not possible to define minimum quality level for certain quality parameter (as in case of availability). Only the methodology how to ensure a sufficient quality level can be specified Recommendations It is recommended to continue the activities related to the definition of minimum quality requirements for RIS and to enhance existing infrastructure in order to fulfil these requirements. The framework of expert groups may provide an excellent vehicle to continue this ongoing work on a continuous basis. Although there are European wide quality levels needed for many RIS information elements, the operational necessity for quality enhancements is expected to be most beneficial when established from a corridor perspective. It is recommended that meaningful minimum quality requirements become part of existing RIS standards. Furthermore it is recommended that existing quality requirements within the RIS standards are further investigated and developed. It is recommended to ensure, that the requirements of real RIS users will be examined on more detailed level from the practical point of view (not theoretical). Definition of SLA (or revision of existing SLA) for RIS provision on national level considering the results and recommendations out of Activity 4. The use of standards and guidelines is no guarantee that the quality of systems or the quality of information provided by these systems is adequate or on the same level as implementations of the same service based on the same standards in other countries. When interconnecting these services across borders many differences may show up and many differences in quality may become evident. Therefore it is recommended that the development of implementation guidelines is continued and extended along with additional (international) cooperation. These guidelines should be based on implementation experience as much as possible. They can provide the insight in implementation aspects needed to achieve minimal quality differences in services throughout Europe. Inland shipping is not an isolated economic activity; it has many interconnections with the maritime world, with road traffic, customs, harbour authorities etc. Some quality aspects are defined or are under development in these other transport related areas. A good example is for instance the IALA developments on availability parameters for equipment at (coastal/seaharbour) vessel traffic management centres; much of this equipment can also be found in inland shipping traffic centres. Therefore it is recommended to closely monitor these developments and where appropriate to adopt or refer to standards and guidelines from other disciplines for inland shipping processes. In some cases quality cannot easily be expressed in numbers. This does not mean that QoIS cannot be addressed; the processes involved in producing and providing the RIS information can be viewed at. Within the European context of inland shipping this means that the production of RIS information itself should be looked at and where needed be aligned and harmonized with the information production processes in other countries. This will eventually lead to harmonization of quality, without the need for numeric reference values on quality levels. In practice this means that international cooperation between EU countries is needed up to the level of (day to day) operational activities. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 15 of 64

16 1.5.3 Envisioned next steps Quality of River Information Services shall become a permanent agenda item at each meeting of the various RIS Expert Groups (Inland ECDIS EG, Notices to Skippers EG, Vessel Tracking and Tracing EG and Electronic Reporting International EG). The Experts within the RIS Expert Groups shall conclude on the most important quality aspects and quality parameters for each key RIS technology to be further elaborated on (e.g. accuracy of water level integration into Inland ENCs) Fairways and requirements are different; further fine-tuning of QoIS is required, reflecting and considering the local needs (e.g. Danube is different to Rhine). Focussing attention to quality requirements within inland shipping corridors may prove to be most beneficial Specific expertise of the Inland Navigation Branch Organisations and inland waterway transport sector will be unconditionally required Investigate the dependencies between the quality parameters, the business process, operational processes of the authorities and national legislation Investigate the benefits of increased quality compared to the costs the implementation of such quality Establish a RIS Service Directory of all operational RIS Services in Europe. This Service Directory can be the basis for further investigations on quality of RIS Analyse national implementations according to identified quality parameters and give national authorities and organisations guidance on how to improve the quality of the provided services (can be done by a specialised Evaluation / Quality Assurance Task Force ) Investigate best practice examples and existing Service Level Agreements for already operational RIS Services Put specific emphasis on the quality aspects and quality parameters that are important for the interoperability of RIS Services throughout Europe. The establishment of a RIS Service Directory and of a RIS Service oriented architecture will be important milestones for achieving improved interoperability of RIS. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 16 of 64

17 2 Introduction This document contains a description of the work that was done in relation to quality aspects within RIS. It has been produced as part of the work within Activity 4 of the IRIS Europe II project and cannot fully be understood without having knowledge of this work and the contents of other documents produced as part of Sub Activities 4.1 through 4.5. This foreword attempts to answer some of the questions that a reader, not familiar with mentioned work and documents, may run in to. General setting Activity 4 of the IRIS Europe II project addresses Quality of (RIS) Information Services with the emphasis on 4 so called key technologies : 1) Notices to Skippers services 2) Electronic reporting services 3) The RIS index (meaning the index with fairway network reference data) 4) Vessel traffic services There are many different RIS services, many different quality aspects, many different business processes using RIS services, many different (groups of) data elements supplied by services and many different circumstances under which information is used. During various Activity 4 meetings it became clear that choices had to be made; it would have been impractical in terms of usefulness and manpower to try covering all quality aspects of all information elements supplied by all RIS services for all circumstances. It was decided that a selected choice of services and quality aspects were to be addressed and that the work on this was to be divided amongst the project partners, each with a lead responsibility for one particular key technology. The consequences of these limitations have yet to be elaborated. Selection of services Baseline for selecting services has been the PIANC version of the RIS guideline. This guideline lists over 70 different services which, even when limiting them to mentioned key technologies, would amount to a lot of services to cover, so a subset was chosen based on the following criteria: The service is currently or soon available/operational in 1 or more EU countries; Practical experience with these services has shown quality related issues; Quality issues are not only local or national but also play a role in international RIS implementations of the service. Chosen quality aspects After considering some of the quality issues currently at hand in the participating countries, the following parameters were chosen: Availability: Ability to use data and facilities (meaning hardware, software, network/communication facilities etc.) Correctness of information: Accuracy: Deviation from real world (information content) Age: Time passed by since measurement or creation (information age) Completeness (in particular for the RIS index data) Quality parameter definitions IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 17 of 64

18 From the very beginning of the project it was obvious that clear and unambiguous definitions of quality parameters are essential. Without these, results will be misinterpreted and lead to permanent confusion. The definitions used in the Sub Activity 4.n documents are the following: Availability: The Availability definition is based on a functional demand; when all hardware, firmware, software and network facilities all perform their designed main functions, the RIS service is considered available. This basic requirement is extended for the situation where involved system/network components are being repaired and bypassed with an acceptable workaround. Obviously the latter requires a definition of acceptable. Therefore it was agreed (for all RIS key technologies), that availability shall be expressed as a percentage (%) of a year that the service has to be available and is always accompanied with a maximum allowable downtime (MADT) of the system/service, expressed in hours per disturbance. The allowable downtime is measured between the moment that a service has been alerted as non functioning till the moment the service is operational again (without or with workaround, see total handling time in schematic below). The maximum value is, in general, based on a user requirement. Figure 1: Quality parameters Note1: A single availability figure without the MADT does not make much sense. An availability of 95.8% could mean all year long available except for 1 hour each day ; it could also mean once per year not available for 15 days in a row. This first might be acceptable and the last clearly not, hence the accompanying maximum allowable downtime to availability figures. Note2: Availability should not be confused with completeness of information ; when data is missing this is generally not a hardware/software/network problem of the RIS service facility itself. Accuracy: This parameter is defined as the deviation from real world and is expressed as a percentage above and below the parameter value (for example water level = 366 cm +/- 5%). Age: Some information has a tendency to age and becomes less appropriate / useful or even misleading as time passes by. The age quality parameter is expressed as time passed by since measurement or creation of the information element. The appropriateness / usefulness of an information element may become less gradually in time or degrade very abrupt. For both cases a description may be added to indicate the usefulness of aged data for the business processes using the particular services. IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 18 of 64

19 For some parameters this is not appropriate. For example a water level value ages much faster in a tidal area than in a canal and may be subject to sudden aging beyond usefulness when a hydroelectric power plant is started or a floodgate is opened. For such cases a description of the age requirements may be listed. Completeness: The examination of the completeness quality parameter refers to data coverage of data in relation to the objects mentioned in RIS Index. Minimum requirements For all of the above listed quality parameters, in certain cases there are also minimum requirements values mentioned in individual tables. If the concrete value is proposed, the source where it is taken from is mentioned also in the footnote. In certain cases, the minimum required values are left blank. In this case the minimum required value is not specified. In certain cases, it is not possible to provide one minimum requirement value, which could be applicable thorough Europe, since the requirements on provision of RIS services differs per region, per user group, per traffic density, etc. In these situations only methodology how to ensure the required service level is given (e.g. above mentioned approach how to specify availability of service). IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 19 of 64

20 3 SuAc 4.1 Definition of QoIS in the RIS Context 3.1 Introduction IRIS Europe II, Activity 4 deals with the introduction of Quality of Information Services in the RIS context. Main objective is the elaboration of harmonised European (minimum) quality requirements and definitions for RIS services. Due to the complexity of this activity, it is clear that within IRIS Europe II only a representative selection of QoIS can be elaborated and defined. Therefore the focus lies on selected services / information elements for the following RIS key technologies: Notices to Skippers (further explored in SuAc 4.2) Electronic Reporting (further explored in SuAc 4.3) Vessel Tracking and Tracing (further explored in SuAc 4.5) In addition to the RIS key technologies the following reference data with high importance for the RIS key technologies and several RIS services is taken into account: National RIS Indices (further explored in SuAc 4.4) The results out of Activity 4 shall provide a solid basis for the further harmonised definition of European (minimum) quality requirements in the RIS context. This document is an outcome of SuAc 4.1 defining the general approach and the focus of Activity 4 by selecting the most relevant services / information elements and quality aspects. This document also aims on fulfilling the IRIS Europe II milestone M6 (Results documented for the definition of service levels in the RIS Context). 3.2 Sphere of influence for QoIS Information chain The quality of a River Information Service is a complex matter, it depends on the quality of several individual components in the information chain (source data, interconnections and facilities, etc.) used to create and publish the data. The figure below illustrates the focus of the work. Information Chain Datasources Quality of Information (data sources) Process requirements Quality of Information (output) RIS users External Information Data suppliers (services) Information RIS services Information Quality of Services (Access facilities for data sources) IRIS2 Ac4 Scope Figure 2: Information Chain Overview Quality of Services (Delivery facilities) IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 20 of 64

21 3.2.2 Structure of quality In general the quality of River Information Services can be split into: The quality of the information itself, which is built up by: o The quality of the information that is provided by the service to its users. Depending on the type of data, this quality is expressed in terms of accuracy, reliability, age, completeness, correctness, conformity to standards, etc. o The quality of the input data. Many services read information from sources, transform this one way or another and then provide it to users. The quality of this input data is expressed in similar terms as for the previous one. The quality of the service facilities, which can be divided into: o The quality of the delivery facilities, used for information to reach users. This is in general determined by the availability, reliability, security, performance, etc of the supplying systems and facilities; o The quality of the access facilities for data sources, in general determined by the availability, reliability, security, performance etc of the systems and facilities used by data suppliers/sources (such as "other systems", shippers/skippers, authorities, etc.) Influences SuAc 4.1 deals with the definition of minimum recommendable quality aspects and parameters for the RIS services. In exploring these quality aspects four interrelated fields need to be considered: Figure 3: Influences on quality level RIS services: RIS comprises a variety of services; many but not all will be considered in sub activity 4.1. Following the division and grouping of services presented in the "Guidelines and recommendations River Information Services" from the International Navigation Association (PIANC) a choice will be made of services to be considered. Arguments to include a service in the quality requirements analysis are in general: The service is to be implemented to comply with the RIS directive The international exchange of information for and/or provided by the service may require harmonized quality IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 21 of 64

22 The service entails one of the considered key technologies covered by SuAcs 4.2 through 4.5 Information elements: Each Service provides elements of information to users (more accurate: to inland shipping business processes). Some of these elements may be provided by several (different) services (e.g. "position information" about ships is used / provided by several different services to different processes with different usage). Based on the initial grouping in "services", an inventory is presented for specific information elements. Process requirements: In general inland shipping processes require information to run properly. "Process requirements" include the quality demands these processes impose on the information they use. When for example a skipper is planning a journey, the planning process requires information such as water levels (current and/or predicted) with a certain accuracy, actuality etc. User requirements are closely related to, but not quite the same as process requirements ("skipper" versus "voyage planning" in the previous example). Since RIS is about services providing information for business processes, this document addresses "process requirements" rather than "user requirements". Quality parameters: There are many different aspects that add up to the "quality" of a service. Some of these, but not all, can be expressed in a parameter with a value. Before establishing parameter values, it has to be clear what the parameter is about and that requires clear and unambiguous definitions of these quality parameters. So the fourth angle of exploration will be the definition of quality parameters specific for the RIS context. These definitions will be used throughout all documentation on Ac 4 and related SuAcs RIS services and related key technologies As mentioned above, not all RIS Services can be taken into account for the work to be done within Activity 4, due to its complexity. Therefore the most relevant RIS services / information elements need to be identified for being further investigated in detail. For the identification of the relevant RIS services, the RIS Guidelines were used. In the table below the RIS services are presented in the same order and grouping as in the "Guidelines and recommendations for River Information Services" from the International Navigation Association (PIANC) and as contained within Directive 414/2007. In the columns next to the description of the service / information element, the relevant RIS users are indicated (as defined within the RIS Guidelines). Within SuAc 4.1 the allocation of the RIS services / information elements towards the considered RIS key technologies was elaborated and is as well indicated in the table below. Functional decomposition River Information Services (table 4.6 from PIANC guidelines) RIS Technology No. RIS service RIS sub-service RIS function (Information Element) Information level Ship master VTS operator Lock/ bridge operator Waterways authority Terminal operator Calamity Centre Fleet manager Cargo shipper NtS ERI VTT ENC (IECDIS) FIS FIS.1 Fairway information service Geography of the navigation area and FIS X X X X X X X X their updates FIS.2 Navigation aids and traffic signs FIS X X X X X X X IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 22 of 64

23 Functional decomposition River Information Services (table 4.6 from PIANC guidelines) RIS Technology No. RIS service RIS sub-service RIS function (Information Element) Information level Ship master VTS operator Lock/ bridge operator Waterways authority Terminal operator Calamity Centre Fleet manager Cargo shipper NtS ERI VTT ENC (IECDIS) FIS.3 Water depths contours in the navigation channel FIS X X X X X X X X FIS.4 Long time obstructions in the fairway FIS X X X X X X X X X FIS.5 Actual meteorological information FIS X X X X X X FIS.6 Temporary obstructions in the fairway FIS X X X X X X FIS.7 FIS.8 Present and future water levels at gauges State of the rivers, canals, locks and bridges in the RIS area FIS X X X X X X X X X FIS X X X X X X X (X) FIS.9 Restrictions caused by flood and ice FIS X X X X X X X X FIS.10 Malfunctions of aids to navigation FIS X X X X FIS 11 FIS 12 FIS.13 FIS.14 Short term changes of lock and bridge operating times Short term changes of aids to navigation Regular lock and bridge operating times Physical limitations on waterways, bridges and locks FIS X X X X X X FIS X X X X FIS X X X X X X X X FIS X X X X X X X X X FIS.15 Navigational rules and regulations FIS X X X X X X X FIS.16 FIS.17 TI TTI Rates of waterway infrastructure charges Regulations and recommendations for pleasure navigation Traffic information Tactical traffic information (short term related) FIS X X X X FIS (X) X X TTI.1 Presentation of own vessel s position TTI X X X X TTI.2 STI STI.1 STI. 2 STI.3 STI.4 STI.5 Presentation of other vessels positions Strategic traffic information (medium and long term related) Presentation of fairway information (=FIS) Presentation of vessel s positions in large surroundings TTI X X X X FIS X X X X X STI X X X X X X Medium and long term assessment of STI X X X X traffic situation Presentation of vessel s characteristics Presentation of cargo s characteristics STI X X X X X X X X (X) STI X X X X X X X (X) STI.6 Presentation of intended destination STI X X X X X X X X X X IRIS Europe II This project is co-funded by the European Commission page 23 of 64